Philip Schofield ambushes David Cameron with paedophile list

Temaz

Apparently two names were visible on screen! Where will all this end? Will the politicians be outed and punished?

Prime minister David Cameron today told Phillip Schofield he was fuelling a 'witch hunt' after the presenter sensationally handed him a list of alleged Tory paedophiles during and interview on ITV1's This Morning - and said he had found the four names during a 'cursory glance' at the internet.

But the stunt sparked huge controversy amid claims at least two names were visible when Mr Schofield accidentally showed the card to the cameras and said: 'There could have been a cover-up, a paedophile ring amongst the elite of great Britain that led all the way to Downing Street

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229808/David-Cameron-ambushed-astonishing-list-alleged-Tory-child-abusers-live-TV-Philip-Schofield-accidentally-showed-millions-viewers.html

Where To

I still can't picture Philip Schofield without Gordon the Gopher on his lap.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbbBqZyjkiE

Temaz

Where To wrote: »

I still can't picture Philip Schofield without Gordon the Gopher on his lap.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbbBqZyjkiE

He's now apologized, bit of a cheap stunt imo.

brummytom

May have been a cheap stunt, but Cameron managed to completely avoid the actual point by saying it was a witchhunt against gay people. No it's not, people are aware of corruption at the highest levels and want it investigated.
Obviously he won't be keen to have to investigate his mates, though. I'd be amazed if anything actually comes from this inquiry.

Temaz

brummytom wrote: »

Obviously he won't be keen to have to investigate his mates, though. I'd be amazed if anything actually comes from this inquiry.

You're probably right which is quite sad.

bgrizzley

Soneone would want to explain to Cameron that being gay and being a paedophile are two different things.

brummytom

bgrizzley wrote: »

Soneone would want to explain to Cameron that being gay and being a paedophile are two different things.

To be fair to him, I think that's the point he was trying to make - that a lot of names have been bandied about against individuals purely because they're gay/believed to be gay. A lot of morons seem to think gay=paedophile.

Even so, any allegations should be investigated. He can't say 'it's just homophobia'. Yeah, it may be, but there may also be truth behind them.

Duggys Housemate

The gay thing is a definite attempt at a smokescreen, a pedophile can be gay, or not gay, of course.

( that said in the context of the interview, he was right to ignore the list).

Basq

I like Schofield, but that seemed like a desperate and stupid attention seeking stunt.

BensonSlide

A 'cursory glance' on the Internet to gather names isn't a basis for accusing someone of being a nonce. If accusations have been made against someone, then they should be investigated by the police. This frenzy of accusations, speculation, and hearsay on twitter, blogs and forums is quite unsettling. Names thrown around by - relatively - anonymous contributors, with no regard for where they got their information, if they have an axe to grind, if they simply hate the Tories etc.

beans

Basq wrote: »

I like Schofield, but that seemed like a desperate and stupid attention seeking stunt.

Oh, you said stunt

Fratton Fred

brummytom wrote: »

To be fair to him, I think that's the point he was trying to make - that a lot of names have been bandied about against individuals purely because they're gay/believed to be gay. A lot of morons seem to think gay=paedophile.

Even so, any allegations should be investigated. He can't say 'it's just homophobia'. Yeah, it may be, but there may also be truth behind them.

Don't forget, six MPs and Lords were sent to prison this year for fraud. Status is no longer a protector.

As long as the pressure is kept up and Kim Kardashians marriage, or Justin Beiber's new hair style doesn't become more important, then I have confidence that there will be arrests.

I thought it was a bit stupid of Philip Schofield though.

Larbre34

Lol @ nonce, were you in early episodes of The Bill?

'Leave it aaaaaaaaaaaaaaat maaaaaaaaaate, fwat bloke's a nonce maaaaaaaaaaate'

Still, its a serious business, the House of Lords has enough odd balls without a bunch of fiddling peers.

Dartz

We should assume that anyone who wants to work with children is a paedophile. Children are inherently frustrating and disgusting things. No sane human being would want anything to do with them otherwise.


Therefore, we need to find people who detest children, to work with them. And pay them enough to do the job right.

Seedy Arling

Dartz wrote: »

We should assume that anyone who wants to work with children is a paedophile. Children are inherently frustrating and disgusting things. No sane human being would want anything to do with them otherwise.


Therefore, we need to find people who detest children, to work with them. And pay them enough to do the job right.

Savile said he detested children. That finished well, didnt it?

Conall Cernach

Seedy Arling wrote: »

Savile said he detested children. That finished well, didnt it?

But if you also disallowed people who admit to liking children on the grounds that they may be wronguns then you are only left with those people that are in different to children.
Interviewer: "How do you feel about children?"
Candidate 1: "I love the little blighters, I could eat them all up.
Candidate 2: "I hate the little feckers. I wish they'd all feck off and die."
Candidate 3: "Meh"
Interviewer: "You're hired."

Gyalist

Schindler's Schofield's List.

enda1

bgrizzley wrote: »

Soneone would want to explain to Cameron that being gay and being a paedophile are two different things.

Somebody should also explain to the mass deluded world that being a pedophile and being attracted to people (children or not) after puberty are two different things.

vixdname

enda1 wrote: »

Somebody should also explain to the mass deluded world that being a pedophile and being attracted to people (children or not) after puberty are two different things.

Can you then please explain to the "Mass Deluded World" what the difference "In You Opinion Is" since you seem to know so much about it ???

who the fug

Cheap stunt, hope the regulator gives him more than a slap on the wrists

Anyone who got this weeks popbitch know how much of a twat Scholfield now looks like.

This mess is not for public entertainment, even if the media are doing their best to make it so

enda1

vixdname wrote: »

Can you then please explain to the "Mass Deluded World" what the difference "In You Opinion Is" since you seem to know so much about it ???

Em, you even quoted the explanation!? Which bit did you not understand?

blacklilly

enda1 wrote: »

Somebody should also explain to the mass deluded world that being a pedophile and being attracted to people (children or not) after puberty are two different things.

Seriously dodgy post just there Enda, what exactly are you saying? It's ok for a man to be sexually attracted to say a 13 year old girl but not a 10-11 year old? You do also know some people hit puberty as young as 9 ( younger again in some cases)

ceadaoin.

An article in the Guardian today throwing doubt on the identity of one of the people 'revealed' online.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/08/mistaken-identity-tory-abuse-claim

phasers

Cheap stunt? maybe. Stupid move? definitely.

I wonder what the idea behind it was? It's a fairly risky move on the show and on Schofe's part, surely this opens him up to legal action? Especially showing the card to camera!

enda1

blacklilly wrote: »

Seriously dodgy post just there Enda, what exactly are you saying? It's ok for a man to be sexually attracted to say a 13 year old girl but not a 10-11 year old? You do also know some people hit puberty as young as 9 ( younger again in some cases)

You can be sexually attracted to a pineapple for all I care. There is nothing right or wrong about attraction. One needs to remove the link between attraction and crime. It is acting on the attraction to children which is wrong, particularly in the case of prepubescent children (pedophiles). Attraction to children who've been through puberty is a whole different ballpark. Many countries have very different stances on an acceptable age of consent or age differential between the partners.

And there is nothing "dodgy" about correcting ignorance.

pookiesboo

bgrizzley wrote: »

Soneone would want to explain to Cameron that being gay and being a paedophile are two different things.

That's not what he said.. There are stories out there that some of the alleged abusers are gay tory mps ..and sadly some idiots think that being gay automatically makes you a paedophile.

Schofield wouldnt have done it if he didnt get the ok from his producers either. What a moron, to say they must be paedophiles because their names are on the internet is ridiculous, anyone could say on the internet that when they were on one of Schofields kids TV shows in the '80's that he was acting dodgy around them so automatically he must be a paedophile. If Schofield is so sure that the people on the list are paedos why hasnt he gone to the police with it?

Son Of A Vidic

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Don't forget, six MPs and Lords were sent to prison this year for fraud. Status is no longer a protector.

Status no longer a protector? Oh don't swallow that, it was merely an exercise in tokenism and nothing more.